Trump White House

War, Not Scandal, Is What Will End Donald Trump

An inter-delegation meeting between the United States and Saudi Arabia, who are partners in their war in Yemen.

By Bandar Algaloud/Saudi Kingdom Council/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images.

As we mark the 15th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, one of the shrewdest observations this week came from Spectator columnist Daniel McCarthy, who suggests it’s “not surprising that the Iraq War faction of the G.O.P. should today find common cause with mainstream liberals: this is the Bush-Clinton coalition of 2003 reborn.” Iraq does indeed continue to shape everything. This writer happens to feel that the torture of detainees in U.S. care—what Antonio Taguba, the general who brought the Abu Ghraib scandal to light, referred to as “an assault on American ideals”—was perhaps an even greater disgrace than the loss of life in Iraq. But McMarthy’s point stands. The factions of 2003, at least one of which has immersed itself into a warm bath of selective amnesia, help to clarify the factions of our present political moment. And the scale of death and loss resulting from that war helps to put Donald Trump’s presidency in perspective. Compared to Iraq, none of the sins of the Trump White House amount to much. In fact, Trump starts to look almost good.

Any director of photography knows that when you zoom in on something in motion it increases the sense of speed. Observing the Trump White House daily, as journalists or political obsessives tend to do, has a similar effect. Missteps and blunders happen daily. Mayhem rules. The president says horrible things and tweets horrible things. Special counsel Robert Mueller continues his probing and prodding. Porn stars are threatening to divulge secrets. Someone high up in the White House is leaking material directly from the daily presidential briefing, a remarkable betrayal. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump seem to be getting purged, and staff turnover doesn’t show any signs of ending soon. No one quite understands what Trump’s game is with North Korea or with anything else. And there are probably a dozen more woes that I am forgetting.

But in the big picture, when the camera pulls back, the movement slows. In fact, with the assistance of some strong liquor, you might even argue that things are going O.K. for this White House. Trump has gotten some big tax cuts through. He has seated a Supreme Court justice. He has followed through on protectionist promises by imposing steel tariffs. He has rolled back a number of initiatives of the Obama White House that conservatives didn’t like. The economy is strong. And, most important, he has, so far, kept us out of a new war. Many Americans, i.e. Trump supporters, like this deal. Many others feel mostly unbothered by it. If that latter group is large enough, Trump’s political fortunes could prove surprisingly favorable.

To get a sense of proportion, review how often the White House of Bill Clinton was consumed by stupid drama during its first term, particularly its first two years. Not a week went by, it seemed, without some potential scandal or misstep (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, airport haircut, and on and on and on), and it was in those two years that Kenneth Starr was appointed as a special counsel, setting the groundwork for troubles years later. But voters paid very little attention to this. They noticed the more substantive and long-term stories: that President Clinton wanted to lift the ban on gays in the military (he failed), that he wanted to restrict ownership of assault weapons (he succeeded), and that he wanted to remake the healthcare system (he failed). Fairly or not (mostly unfairly, but that’s just my take), they punished him for these things at the midterm polls in 1994, when Republicans gained control of the House in a tsunami, not for unproven Whitewater sins or past lechery. When the economy continued to regain steam and Clinton started to triangulate on policy, voters gave him another term. They knew he might be a bit of a rascal, they just didn't care. Of course, on personal vices and baggage, Trump appears to exceed Clinton by an order of magnitude, but the pattern is otherwise familiar.

To be sure, any of these fires could, in theory, erupt into a major blaze, just as the string of inquiries and investigations with which adversaries kept on harassing Bill Clinton eventually wound up netting an unlikely fish. But most will not. Calvin Coolidge famously said that “if you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.” For a White House, 99 out of 100 may be closer to the truth. Presidents face lots and lots and lots of threats. Most dissolve before making landfall. Those in the resistance faction still seem to think Trump will be undone any day by Robert Mueller, but the odds of Mueller presenting anything of great national-security consequence are lower and lower, since none of the indictments so far suggest Russian collusion in any meaningful sense of the term. That would leave Mueller accusing Trump of a cover-up without an underlying crime. It’s not an impossible sell to Congress—especially one in which the House is taken back by Democrats—but it’s a tough one.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz, and Donald Trump hold a glowing orb at the opening of Saudi Arabia’s Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in May 2017.

From Saudi Press Agency/EPA/Rex/Shutterstock.

The two biggest threats to Trump’s political survival are recession and war. Trump cannot do much to prevent the former, nor can he do much to mitigate the political damage of it. But on the latter, he can do a lot. A war with Iran, something hawks seem to encourage these days, would destroy Trump’s presidency. That’s where the bad news for everyone comes in. Signs have been troubling. Trump has ousted supporters of the deal with Iran, like Rex Tillerson, and nominated the C.I.A.’s Mike Pompeo, a hawk, to replace him. John Bolton, a member of the “when in doubt, bomb” school of thought, is rumored to be in the running as a national security adviser. Trump has cozied up ever more to Saudi Arabia, posing with photos of the billions of dollars of U.S. arms it has purchased. The most optimistic read on this would be that Trump is signaling belligerence in order to give himself cover for the opposite—as might be happening with North Korea. (Ronald Reagan was notably skilled at this game.) But the realistic read on it is that he is simply doing exactly what he appears to be doing.

If there’s a moral here, then, it’s that wars are what really do a presidency in. It’d also be what did in Trump. If there’s a second moral, it’s that perspective is very hard to keep in the face of proximity. Or of partisanship. In his column for the Spectator, McCarthy notes “the curious fact that Trump’s most vocal detractors among Republican-leaning pundits were virtually, to a person, enthusiastic advocates of the war.” And those detractors, even Bush himself, have come into widespread favor simply for not being Trump. Ellen DeGeneres now dances with George W. Bush and helps promote his painting. Former C.I.A. chief John Brennan gets liberal plaudits for tweeting at Trump, “you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history”—his role in hacking into Senate computers to steal materials relating to C.I.A. torture programs (and then lying about it) now quite forgiven. Among those who fared less well is the aforementioned General Antonio Taguba, who back in 2006 was told, in what he viewed as a clear message from top brass, that he must retire. The erstwhile Iraq hawks and newly born resistance members haven’t spoken up much for him, even as they vow to defend civilization from threats like Donald Trump. Well, as those whom we intend to benefit with our next intervention might say, your help is unwanted.